
There is a niggle in the back of my head. A meddling thought that comes out of no-where every so often and then disappears as quickly as it came. I’ve only just been able to crystalise and thus articlate this thought so here is my attempt at putting it to bed.
In a world of relatively new concepts like user centered design, information architecture, why is the language we use so far removed from reality?
Users, Use-Cases, Scenarios, Actions, Interactions.
If user-centered design is intended as a way of humanising and making products and services more relevant and usable for the target audience, then all of these phrases are a direct contradiction of that ethos. Who really uses these words in real life?
Over the past year we’ve been involved in quite a few big website build projects that have required a significant period of user centred design. I am not just talking about doing wireframes. Our way of working puts our ‘users’ at the heart of everything we do. We always set out our requirements gathering stage of the project by positioning them from the target audience point of view. The language of all our documentation is all based in ‘UX speak’. For example:
- As a user I want to log in to the website and see all my uploaded photos.
- As a user I would like to share my photos with my friends.
- As a user I would like to be able to delete old photos that I no longer wish to display.
You get the general idea. This helps us formulate a wish list of functionality, which leads through to the creation of wireframes and then these prioritized features are designed and built. Our testing period uses the above terminology to check whether we have succeeded or not in what we originally set out to do. We can place great big ticks next to each ‘User Story’. So far so good right? Well, not really.
As we go through the above process our team often have to justify the design and functionality decisions we are making.That means that these documents, conversations etc are all shared with account directors, client marketing directors, client CEOs etc. Whenever I suggest that we are basing this or that route on something that the ‘user’ might do I am met with a familiar 3 second look. Its a look that firstly questions whether they have heard me correctly, secondly tries to work out why that word is relevant within the sentence and thirdly relaxes into an uncomfortable “ok buddy, I think you mean ‘our customers’ so lets just pretend that you didn’t see me wince when you said ‘user’ to me”.
A user? A what? Are they on drugs? A user story – why is it a story? Who is telling the story? Is this jackanory?.
‘User’ is the word user that I am most ill-at-ease with. It is jargon of its worst kind and I grimace everytime I say it. I will maybe say it 20 times a day and just assume that it means the same to me as it does to others. But it doesn’t. To others it reinforces the idea that people are almost programmed to do what we think they will do. The phrase de-humanizes our audience so much that we creep into habits of making huge presumptions on what they do and how they will do it. The phrase tempts us to be lazy, it tricks us into grouping a multitude of different personalities into one homogenous meld of a human/user. A (huser maybe?).
So what’s the solution? I don’t have one that I am completely convinced by.
One method of humaizing our user’s in this world is to give them typical personalities. These can exist as pen portraits.
‘Suzy is 23 years old and has left university where she studied bio-chemistry. She is a fitness fanatic and is a member of a local running club. She is on Facebook and has 262 friends although she would say that only 20 of them are real friends.’
The idea being that in your test scripts you can relate your ‘characters’ to the journey’s that you set up.
- Suzy recieves an email and is asked to ‘Sign up to join the party’.
- Suzy clicks on the link and is taken to www.jointheparty.com.
- Suzy now needs to register her details.
I think it’s probably a good thing for the development team to think about the various personalities the product may encounter – but for the wider team? I think the response might be ‘Who the **** is Suzy?’
So has anyone got any bright ideas? Should we just translate this ad-land speak into simple laymens terms?
Users, Use-Cases, Scenarios, Actions, Interactions.
could translate to…
People, Things that might happen to these people, What someone has done, Stuff you need to do, Stuff you do and you get something back.
It doesn’t quite work does it? It just all sounds a bit rubbish – without any sort of knowledge behind the words.
So anyway – I’m looking for answers so if you have any please follow these user stories:
Scenario:
- User is on blog url http://weirandwong.com/blog/whoareusers/.
- User has read blog post.
- User has urge to comment on blog post.
User Actions:
- User types enlightening and helpful comment in box entitled ‘Post a comment’
- User fills in Captcha form
- User presses ‘Post Comment’
Admin Actions:
- Admin reads user comment
- Admin finds comment useful
- ‘Admin’ becomes ‘Andy’ from henceforth
- ‘Users’ becomes ‘Dudes’ from henceforth
Test complete. Maybe.
Who are these ‘Users’ anyway?
There is a niggle in the back of my head. A meddling thought that comes out of no-where every so often and then disappears as quickly as it came. I’ve only just been able to crystalise and thus articlate this thought so here is my attempt at putting it to bed.
In a world of relatively new concepts like user centered design, information architecture, why is the language we use so far removed from reality?
Users, Use-Cases, Scenarios, Actions, Interactions.
If user-centered design is intended as a way of humanising and making products and services more relevant and usable for the target audience, then all of these phrases are a direct contradiction of that ethos. Who really uses these words in real life?
Over the past year we’ve been involved in quite a few big website build projects that have required a significant period of user centred design. I am not just talking about doing wireframes. Our way of working puts our ‘users’ at the heart of everything we do. We always set out our requirements gathering stage of the project by positioning them from the target audience point of view. The language of all our documentation is all based in ‘UX speak’. For example:
You get the general idea. This helps us formulate a wish list of functionality, which leads through to the creation of wireframes and then these prioritized features are designed and built. Our testing period uses the above terminology to check whether we have succeeded or not in what we originally set out to do. We can place great big ticks next to each ‘User Story’. So far so good right? Well, not really.
As we go through the above process our team often have to justify the design and functionality decisions we are making.That means that these documents, conversations etc are all shared with account directors, client marketing directors, client CEOs etc. Whenever I suggest that we are basing this or that route on something that the ‘user’ might do I am met with a familiar 3 second look. Its a look that firstly questions whether they have heard me correctly, secondly tries to work out why that word is relevant within the sentence and thirdly relaxes into an uncomfortable “ok buddy, I think you mean ‘our customers’ so lets just pretend that you didn’t see me wince when you said ‘user’ to me”.
A user? A what? Are they on drugs? A user story – why is it a story? Who is telling the story? Is this jackanory?.
‘User’ is the word user that I am most ill-at-ease with. It is jargon of its worst kind and I grimace everytime I say it. I will maybe say it 20 times a day and just assume that it means the same to me as it does to others. But it doesn’t. To others it reinforces the idea that people are almost programmed to do what we think they will do. The phrase de-humanizes our audience so much that we creep into habits of making huge presumptions on what they do and how they will do it. The phrase tempts us to be lazy, it tricks us into grouping a multitude of different personalities into one homogenous meld of a human/user. A (huser maybe?).
So what’s the solution? I don’t have one that I am completely convinced by.
One method of humaizing our user’s in this world is to give them typical personalities. These can exist as pen portraits.
‘Suzy is 23 years old and has left university where she studied bio-chemistry. She is a fitness fanatic and is a member of a local running club. She is on Facebook and has 262 friends although she would say that only 20 of them are real friends.’
The idea being that in your test scripts you can relate your ‘characters’ to the journey’s that you set up.
I think it’s probably a good thing for the development team to think about the various personalities the product may encounter – but for the wider team? I think the response might be ‘Who the **** is Suzy?’
So has anyone got any bright ideas? Should we just translate this ad-land speak into simple laymens terms?
Users, Use-Cases, Scenarios, Actions, Interactions.
could translate to…
People, Things that might happen to these people, What someone has done, Stuff you need to do, Stuff you do and you get something back.
It doesn’t quite work does it? It just all sounds a bit rubbish – without any sort of knowledge behind the words.
So anyway – I’m looking for answers so if you have any please follow these user stories:
Scenario:
User Actions:
Admin Actions:
Test complete. Maybe.